russians beating up a king tiger -1 reply

  • 1
  • 2

Please wait...

czech speacial forces

I pretend I'm cooler than AzH

50 XP

3rd September 2005

0 Uploads

3,369 Posts

0 Threads

#1 12 years ago
Nostradamouse

The Arrogant French Prick

50 XP

5th December 2004

0 Uploads

4,501 Posts

0 Threads

#2 12 years ago

War production heh?




KleenexMan

Don't cry its only the finger.

50 XP

24th October 2004

0 Uploads

344 Posts

0 Threads

#3 12 years ago

Definetly typical of production Tiger 2's. I think they should make the King Tiger like this in FH. Of course then we would get the kiddies complaining about why such a heavily armored tank would be defeated so easily. Then we would have to explain metallurgy to them and get killed in game.




[21Pz]Stauffenberg

the Wishmaster

50 XP

29th April 2005

0 Uploads

2,040 Posts

0 Threads

#4 12 years ago
KleenexManThen we would have to explain metallurgy to them and get killed in game.

So dont do it :naughty:




czech speacial forces

I pretend I'm cooler than AzH

50 XP

3rd September 2005

0 Uploads

3,369 Posts

0 Threads

#5 12 years ago

the king tiger had soft armor but a lot of it. didnt the tiger I have the very best of the hard armor but only 100mm of it?




KleenexMan

Don't cry its only the finger.

50 XP

24th October 2004

0 Uploads

344 Posts

0 Threads

#6 12 years ago
czech speacial forcesthe king tiger had soft armor but a lot of it. didnt the tiger I have the very best of the hard armor but only 100mm of it?

No, the Tiger one had soft armor that was able to flex under the pressure of a round hitting it. This was due to its many metal contents including nickel. However the KT didn't have very much nickel content in its armor...if any at all...which made it too hard and it spalled or shattered because of how brittle it was.




Mazz

BFE-WAW

50 XP

16th November 2003

0 Uploads

1,245 Posts

0 Threads

#7 12 years ago

I know theres a scale for rating a tanks armor capabilities in a metallurgic sense, although i dont remember how the hell it works anymore. IIRC the 'Tiger I's armor was considered the best of the war for any nation because it was malleable under pressure but not too soft to the point where it was easy to penetrate in the least. The Tiger IIs armor as pointed out in that report was very brittle as the article said but this is really not a problem of the german design, more a lack of the right materials and a need to improvise. They used a Boron (IIRC) based armor that hadnt really been combat tested. That, and the state of german industry didnt really make for a greatly armored tank. But I wouldnt follow that report to the T because 'mother russia' has a tendency to exaggerate for propaganda perposes. That, and continuous testing on the same armor is really gonna screw with your results as its already weakened to a pretty extreme amount as you can see.




jumjum

Write heavy; write hard.

50 XP

11th April 2005

0 Uploads

6,827 Posts

0 Threads

#8 12 years ago
czech speacial forcesthe king tiger had soft armor but a lot of it. didnt the tiger I have the very best of the hard armor but only 100mm of it?

Actually Mazz has the more correct answer to czech sf than Kleenex man. In the report itself, it clealry states the finding that the armor was brittle. The Russian analysts went on to say the cause of the brittle KT armor ws the lack of molybdenum as an alloy, and noted that Germany could not obtain it in sufficient quantities to use it as an alloy in steel for tank armor.

And Mazz also notes the tendency of Soviets to put such a propaganda spin on virtually all Russian publications, that the report must be looked at with a jaundiced eye. I think he's right. It might be just a matter of degree, but I think this report may have exaggerated the KT's mechanical unreliability. Yes, that was the knock on the KT, and the Tiger as well. But if the report makes it sound as if no KT could even get[I] to the battlefield. And it makes the armor sound so shoddy that the KT's must have been killed immediately on catching sight of the heroic IS tanks. heh

I can only base this on my own reading, particularly "Armor Battles Of The SS", but all reports I've seen reported the KTs as very battleworthy, able to take tremendous pounding, and not prone to the kind of mechanical trouble described in the Russian report. In fact, I was struck by the stories of how well KTs seemed to be able to move under their own power even after the kind of battle danage or mechanical or drive trouble that should have (I thought) stopped them. But given a choice, I still think I might want an IS-2 or -3 instead of the KT.




KleenexMan

Don't cry its only the finger.

50 XP

24th October 2004

0 Uploads

344 Posts

0 Threads

#9 12 years ago
jumjum lack of molybdenum as an alloy, and noted that Germany could not obtain it in sufficient quantities to use it as an alloy in steel for tank armor.

Ah yea that was what it was. Also I can't see why a disabled German tank would have a stripped transmission with the Russian engineers "working" on it. I bet 10 bucks they where trying to do a neutural drop and dropped the tranny.




Comrade0Red

Za *TRA*, Za Kommunizma!

50 XP

25th March 2004

0 Uploads

895 Posts

0 Threads

#10 12 years ago

And Nazis don't put propaganda spins on their tank's achievement? Relitive to the Russian tanks the KT was very mechanically unsound. I don't think it would be too slanted, otherwise why would they use captured tanks like panthers?




  • 1
  • 2